#discourse alert

[wellofdean]

Ok honestly, what is Jared's problem with Eileen? Also, while we are here, has Jared watched Supernatural? Or?

[bunjywunjy]

I'm very disappointed that you would reblog posts about pitbulls. The "nanny dog" thing is a myth, and they account for nearly 70% of all fatal dog attacks in the USA. It sucks and it's not fair for the dogs, but they were bred to be aggressive. It feels like when someone "tames" a bear cub and is later mauled. It's simply in their nature. And no, I don't care that anecdotally all pitbulls you've met were sweet and kind. Many owners have been killed by their very own sweet pitbulls. It's not ALL pitbulls, but isn't it funny how 70% of the time it's a pitbull?

THIS?????

YOU'RE MAD ABOUT THIS???????

unfollow me right now. I'm genuinely serious.

if you're this eager to believe cop statistics about scary dogs, what the fuck do you believe about other animals?? do you also think sharks are mindless eating machines that want to launch themselves onto the beach after you?? no it's not 'in its nature' or whatever the fuck, do you think it's a jurassic park velociraptor or something?? it's a DOG.

I've posted about this before, but pitbulls are just another type of large-breed dog with breed-specific needs and behaviors that make them not suitable for every home, but by and large they're about the same as every other dog in their size class.

german shepards, malonois, hell, even labs and goldens will maul adults and kill kids if not correctly trained or mistreated! all large dogs are inherently somewhat dangerous and should be trained and treated accordingly, which sadly MANY owners do not. PITS. ARE. NOT. SPECIAL.

[ryanwinsatlife]

Reblog this post if you (a person who experiences sexual attraction, even if only sometimes or under certain conditions) would be happy to spend the rest of your life in a relationship with someone and never once have sex with them.

[that-satireguy]

local weirdo has nothing better to do on christmas than harass women

Honestly i'd been letting this one marinate for a while, but I'd really love for you to do your research on christmas in tajikistan.

[batsplat]

seen people talk about how marcs 2012 season was the reason the penalty point system was introduced (that made vale start from the back in 2015 which is admittedly absolutely absurdly funny) so here i am to ask my favorite motogp historian for thoughts (and prayers?) mostly about what exactly marc DID to make that happen (kinda funny also that he was branded a track terrorist from day 1 😭) and why they struck it in the mid 2010s?

okay so I'm gonna be lazy here and start out by just including what I put in the marc race recs post:

phillip island 2011 was the worst incident, and marc was criticised by motogp riders too, including valentino and casey. that one was like... it was just straight up dangerous and also incredibly stupid, I mean you're trying to get an extra lap in at the end of fp1 and are putting yourself and other riders in serious danger (definitely a case where you can argue that the penalty didn't go far enough and a race ban would have been warranted). marc can sometimes be pretty bullish in response to criticism while still going away and kinda realising what he'd done was a bad idea, quietly adjusting his behaviour... examples include this, where he had his team appeal the penalty, as well as of course 2018 argentina, where he talked down the 'mistakes' he'd made and said he'd done more wrong in the aleix than the valentino incident (which may be true, but it's the rhetorical equivalent of saying it's better to go up to someone's home and throw bricks through the windows than it is to set it on fire) - he is fairly good at learning from his mistakes, even when he doesn't always fully admit to them

that being said, of course he did continue getting himself involved in a fair bit of controversy during 2012. but it's worth pointing out that the penalty points system wasn't just a case of 'oh this kid is so bad, we've got to do something' - it was also a case of 'yeah this is being handled in a super inconsistent manner, actually'. like, there were times people felt marc should be penalised more, yes, but other times where they felt it was too much... it was just a bit all over the place. luckily, inconsistent stewarding is a problem they've managed to fix in the intervening twelve years, so we never hear about that stuff any more. let's just give a quick summary of the four biggest 2012 flashpoints:

qatar: marc runs luthi off-track in a deliberate and pretty dangerous way and gets a slap on the cooldown lap for his troubles, plus a reprimand from race direction

catalunya: towards the end of a race in which marc made several questionable moves, pol espargaro attempted to overtake marc who had just saved a fall - marc cuts across the track to rejoin the racing line and ends up colliding with pol. he was initially given a controversial penalty in the form of a minute added to his final time, before that was rescinded (which was unsuccessfully appealed by pol's team). see here for valentino and casey's reactions

motegi: marc 'torpedoed' kallio in saturday morning practise, riding into his side while kallio was on the racing line headed into a turn and causing kallio to highside... which he was not penalised for. some responses to the incident below

valencia: marc attempted to overtake corsi in friday practise, causing him to crash. this time, race direction handed out a back-of-the-grid penalty

it's a subtle distinction but an important one so I'll just stress it again: the stated aim of the penalty points wasn't to hold back aggressive riders like marc but to attempt to reduce inconsistency, which had been exposed in part due to how differently these marc incidents were handled. what marc did was create several high profile controversies, in each case prompting some level of frustration with how race direction handled the whole thing. obviously, there were other non-marc-related stewarding controversies, but it is inarguable that he was a significant factor in causing a revamp of the system

by the way, here's valentino's criticism of marc after the valencia incident:

here's a quick explanation of how the penalty points worked:

and, you know, for what it's worth marc did calm down in motogp... he certainly became better at operating in the grey area of the rules, approaching his racing in a manner his competitors didn't always appreciate but was certainly a lot harder to penalise. though there were also incidents that of course people felt marc should be penalised for - say after jerez 2013, jorge did kinda go 'okay but surely you can at least give a few penalty points for this, isn't this what they're for'. but it's not like there was unanimous agreement on that, see the immediate responses of some of the riders:

(bradley smith saying that jorge's last serious race was motegi 2005 - the one he got the race ban for - is a bit of an insane stance to take and doesn't really match up to reality, but it did make me laugh so that's something. of course the general point that during the alien era most of them were avoiding doing much actual racing isn't exactly wrong but. still)

not to make this a riding standards post, but this is the underlying tension when you're trying to decide how to regulate the sport... jerez was the first serious test that system faced - and it's one where race direction ended up calling it a pure racing incident. which is a tough call! I talked about it a bit in the sete post and what his stance was on the jerez 2005 incident, where he feels like this isn't a contact sport and shouldn't be adjudicated as such. it's a fundamental philosophical difference that became very relevant again when marc showed up fresh from his controversial moto2 campaign and woke up the entire class with his own particular brand of racing. from a write-up of the jerez 2013 race:

(motegi 2008 not motegi 2010, which is something I remember because casey's pass also allowed valentino to immediately swoop on through. should be noted that casey may have apologised but he did not give the position back to dani lol. also motegi 2010 is pretty memorable if we're talking about hard racing. fair to say that valentino demonstrated he did not share the approach of his fellow aliens when battling jorge)

and more on the shift marc brought about:

this is the thing, right - a big part of understanding that time period is concerning yourself with what came just before. the general feeling (unsurprisingly not shared by casey, jorge or dani) was that the series desperately needed some new life breathed into it, that the racing had become stale and sterile and far too predictable... there were several factors that contributed to this, from the beloathed 800cc bikes that were only replaced in 2012, to the approach of those three aliens and how adept they'd become at racking up wins by dominating out front, to how valentino (generally considered the most 'exciting' racer of the lot) had taken himself out of the competitive picture... I mean, in all honesty the racing is still not great in 2013 compared to the rossi heyday (it had gotten better by the very end of the 2010s), but of course there's a lot more energy to it than the years before. which meant the sport as a whole was in a tricky place where they both had to be seen to be constraining marc, stopping him from being an active danger to himself and others, while also kind of... letting him loose. a little bit of controversy is hardly a bad thing, after all - love him or hate him, everyone had a take, and that's the kind of thing that's obviously healthy for a sport

marc did get two penalty points that year for ignoring yellow flags in silverstone and crashing in the same place as cal crutchlow had just gone down:

(for obvious reasons, 'ignoring yellow flags' is extremely dangerous, but there's no reason to believe he wasn't being honest here)

he was also given another penalty point for the contact that caused dani's crash in aragon, taking him perilously close to that back-of-the-grid penalty:

and that was basically their position - it's a warning. broadly they wanted him to not completely revamp his approach, but just apply a little more discretion, exercise his judgement. a little more caution, a little more restraint. it's still fundamentally a different philosophy of racing than the one that had been espoused for several years by the other aliens save for valentino - but marc could get to a place where he was engaging in hard racing that generally toed the line without crossing it. a little more detail on the aragon incident and marc's approach to racing in the context of the time period from this write-up:

this is the issue, right, marc was riding on just the right line of acceptable that race direction would not have in any way been justified in slapping out race bans - though you can certainly argue that in some cases, you could have handed out more penalty points, which would then have meant he would have faced more 'real' consequences. in any case, they couldn't actually 'teach him a lesson', because he'd already more or less learned it... if the lesson is 'hard racing and contact is fine, just don't overdo it'. which of course, not everyone would agree with. the odd memorable exception aside, throughout marc's premier class career he's been very aware of that line, and has taken care to avoid bringing the wrath of race direction upon himself too severely

the penalty points thing and sepang 2015... well, first of all let's quickly bring in what the actual ruling was:

honestly, I imagine that if they didn't have a penalty points system, they would've figured out a different way to penalise him, and might have slapped him with a back-of-the-grid penalty anyway. not in a 'oh the fim had it out for valentino rossi!!!!' way, more that they did need to be seen doing something. the penalty points felt like a fairly elegant way of giving a penalty that wasn't that harsh and wasn't making any judgement calls over whether valentino deliberately kicked marc, while also in an indirect way ensuring that valentino would suffer consequences. and yes, it is a nice bit of dramatic irony - but the piece says it, the penalty "had to be severe enough for rossi to feel truly punished". the penalty points happened to be the tool they had available and perhaps with a different set of rules, valentino would have been handed a slightly different flavour of punishment. but really, this is more 'fun historical coincidence' than something that massively changed the events that played out

of course, it was a controversial decision that few people felt 100% comfortable with. on the one hand, if you believe that valentino kicked marc, then you probably would have wanted him to be disqualified - three measly penalty points does not feel enough in that situation. on the other, if you believe that valentino engaged aggressively with marc but without deliberately trying to make him crash, then a back-of-the-grid penalty that essentially decided the outcome of the championship before the final race even started is a tough pill to swallow. (of course there's also a position somewhere in between where valentino didn't literally kick marc but did attempt to run him off track, which would make the penalty 'about right'.) of course, the championship standings should ideally not determine what sort of penalties are being handed out - but equally, it's something that did limit the intrigue going into the race, and over something that felt quite arbitrary. the other penalty point he'd gotten to rack up the four total was about a qualifying incident in misano - which either feels like a silly thing to determine the ultimate outcome of the championship, or instead is a demonstration of how the cumulative nature of the points system is supposed to work. but yes, it did get a lot of criticism in the aftermath, with concerns over whether future title fights could end up being defanged as an indirect consequence of relatively minor incidents earlier in the season

and of course, the penalty points were eventually scrapped in early 2017. here's a bit more on that decision:

basically, sepang 2015 was a contributing factor to broader changes in how motogp was regulated, which down the line had the knock-on effect of getting rid of that penalty system entirely. rightly or wrongly, race direction felt like they had better tools available to penalise riders and this system was now redundant. anyway [insert another lazy gag about how the switch to a stewards panel has completely failed in eliminating controversy from stewarding] [insert pithy closing line] [press post]

[tallerthantale]

Rowling is not currently the subject of a lawsuit because Khalif has not filed one. She could, but it would be a different filing than the criminal complaint she is filing with a court in France, because the French court doesn't have jurisdiction over Rowling. That doesn't mean Rowling didn't do anything wrong according to the law, it means a local French court doesn't have authority over what a British person does in the UK.

That criminal complaint is not 'nothing,' the substance of it just doesn't target Rowling, it targets specific other people. The reason it mentions Rowling and Musk goes to the harm misinformation caused as it spread through larger accounts. It is relevant information, but it doesn't change the fact that that court doesn't have jurisdiction over what Rowling does at home.

It seems like you are starting from the assumption that the action was primarily intended to bring harm to Rowling. It was not. It is a criminal complaint of criminal harassment brought against people in France breaking the law in France. The context of Rowling and Musk's actions were relevant, and therefore were mentioned. The news fixated on the name drops because that's what gets them clicks.

It seems like you believe it is morally superior for people who are the target of criminal harassment to not file legal action against the people harassing them. I am going to strongly disagree with you on that.

Tweetus deletus! Doesn't make the hate go away and looks a lot like an admission of guilt.

[pinkblink]

Y'all lost your ask privelages.

Stop asking me for money when I don't even have enough for myself to live. Y'all all need to learn your tumblr etiquette. I've been on this site since 2016 and I have only received such messages in the last 3-4 months.

Besides, It's also really fucking gross to send asks requesting money because "you know someone who knows someone who lives in Gaza and if you give me 500 dollars I promise it will go to them". No go fund me, no links, just a Venmo @. I wasn't born yesterday. I know a scammer when I see one. How dare you use a tragedy for your own gain. That's like the kind of biblical greed that parables were written to warn against.

[ceeyoutea]

*eye twitch* maybe getting into a new fandom wasn't the best of ideas

[oliverkilljoy]

Convinced that less weirdos would be antis if kids these days had more popular “weird” or “problematic” anime or cartoons on TV.

The issue is that these kids haven’t ent grown up with their own version of Vampire Knight or Ouran High School Host Club.

[itsbebebrainrotting]

"I think we are the most OP team which is why we are being fucked over the hardest" - Tubbo Day 1 of purgatory

[ratbastarddotfuck]

i want baby transmascs to learn that transfems are their oppressors and will take over their spaces if transmascs dont stand up, transfems are selfish its not always about you

very low level bait, 2/10

[tealfruit]

BURGERS 👏 ARE 👏 GROUND 👏 MEAT 👏

enough of this BUN BULLSHIT they're called that because they were MADE. FOR. BURGERS. the BURGER existed BEFORE THE BUN!!!!

and the buns are used FOR OTHER THINGS TOO!!! for example: Chicken Sandwich (NOT CHICKEN BURGER) or Pulled Pork Sandwich (ALSO NOT A BURGER!)

the bun does not make it a burger!!! the state of the PROTEIN does!!! a Chicken Burger can exist but it's made with GROUND CHICKEN not A FRIED CHICKEN PATTY!!!! burger is GROUND MEAT (or meat substitute)!!!!!!!!!

also: burgers Are a sandwich. it's stuff between 2 bread. all burgers are sandwiches. BUT. NOT ALL SANDWICHES ON BUNS ARE BURGERS.

[soullessjack]

how it feels to see identity/label/neopronoun discourse in the big ‘25 after you already spent half of quarantine arguing about it in the comments section of picsart infographic posts on instagram

[exuberantoddity]

settle a debate between my partner and I

I hold firm to the belief that the term just means girls (or girl-adjacent sometimes) who like hobbies traditionally seen as masculine

And that this includes being a weird nerd girl, or at the very least that being such is a similar enough thing to count

My partner insists that while that used to be the meaning, it's morphed into exclusively meaning sporty, super athletic girls

[k-ru-h]

the 2023 AI craze is giving me such a significant brain aneurysm its seriously making me reconsider going into ai as like. the field i want to dedicate my studies to

[humblefryingpan]

I love the Percy Jackson series but almost every canon relationship is so shit (including percabeth) and I think there's like 2 I don't have issues with. If the relationship is well written then there are loads of issues and if it's badly written (like most of them are) there isn't an improvement.

This is specifically about the romantic ones but the platonic ones aren't much better, most of them are really underdeveloped or just ignored. And ofc the constant "they're best friends!" about two characters that never talk or act like they hate eachother, I might make a separate post about them.

So let's start with Calleo (Calypso and Leo) because they are arguably the worst.

At a base level, I never liked it bc it came out of nowhere and made no sense but like I've thought about it a lot and it's such a flawed pairing. There's the age gap, the dynamic and just the way they're treated as soulmates despite not knowing eachother at all

I've seen a bunch of people saying she was good for him because of how 'badly' his friends treated him but honestly she treated him a lot worse. Jokingly calling your friends annoying can be a bit mean when you overdo it but I don't think Leo was ever actually upset by it, most of his sadness was from trauma, his existing fears and the stress he was under with the prophecy. And if your argument is "Calypso was the nicest person to him" then remember Calypso also called him annoying, plus she yelled at him constantly and treated him worse than they did.

And getting a girlfriend would not be good for him considering his issues with self love. He did want a girlfriend but I don't think he should have got with someone, and in my opinion he especially should not have been with Calypso.

Leo could have been literally any guy for her. She's met thousands of men, she's fallen 'in love' with all of them (we know that because they can't leave unless she loves them) and then she's cursed them/their gfs when they leave (she cursed annabeth in tartarus). I think if Leo did get a girlfriend it should have been someone that actually liked him and not just liking what he could do for her.

Yeah Leo was the first guy to go back but he had to kill himself to see her and you should not need to destroy yourself for anyone, and definitely not someone you've known for like 3 days. Leo wanted to save her because he didn't think it was fair she was left there and took the time to help because he felt obligated and he felt bad for her. He was not the only person to try to help, just the only person that was physically able to.

I don't really like Calypso but I'm not saying she is the entire problem, she needed to be around other people. She needed to be free, she just wanted a boyfriend because that was the only option she felt she had. Calleo would not last very long realistically because I don't think either of them specifically wanted eachother.

And onto my biggest issue with this ship - Leo is 15 years old. Calypso is as old as the gods and should not be dating a teenager. In actual mythology (it's quite different but she's still based on and inspired by regular Calypso) Calypso forcibly kept Odysseus on her island for 7 years, raped him multiple times and forced him to have 2 kids with her. Ofc that was changed a lot and pjo Calypso isn't a rapist but why the fuck would Rick take that character and stick her with a 15 year old?

If she's old enough to spend 7 years with Odysseus and old enough to have met a thousand people she's way too old for Leo (like she is thousands of years old and is a daughter of atlas, it doesn't matter if she looks 16). Even if you want to argue that she gave up immortality, she gave it up when she had already been alive for a very very long time and like even if she wasn't immortal she'd be at least 18 because percy, two years before Leo met her said she looked 16 so a human Calypso is also an adult woman trying to date multiple 15 year olds.

They would have been great as friends but Rick was determined to get both of them paired up with anyone so it was the only solution he ever would've gone for.

Next up is frazel (Frank/Hazel) because again, age gap??

There should not be two characters dating minors in one book Rick, please do better.

So Frank is 16 and starts dating Hazel when she is 13. "Frank only just turned 16" yeah but 15 and 13 isn't much better, "Hazel is close to 14" okay but again, 14 and 16 is not okay either.

"it's only 2/3 years" that age gap in adults is totally fine and generally completely unimportant but these are teenagers and when your brain isn't fully developed an age gap of just a few years is pretty important. A three year age gap is the difference between a newborn who can't crawl or say a word and a three year old that can run around and talk almost full sentances. Adults with that gap are the same point in life, the same developmental stage but teens aren't. I'm around Franks age and every single 13 year old I've met has looked about 8 to me. Yesterday a 13 year old girl came into my part time job and started singing the beauty and the beast soundtrack because she saw a red rose and there was no point where I thought "yeah that's hot" because that's a little kid?

And Rick won't give that kid a break because there's also Lazel (Leo/Hazel)

The weird love triangle thing? Because she dated his great grandad?? It was so unnecessary and icky and I swear the only reason that it happened was that Rick didn't know how to flesh out their characters.

Leo hit on every single person without fail and then he reached Hazel who was essentially saying "I have a bf but we could be together if you act nicely"

And they both just kinda suck in every scene, Leo harasses her and then she leads him on (I hate saying that phrase but I do think that's what's happening here) and that just loops.

I just wish Hazel could be single yk? She's 13, she does not need to be in a relationship with anybody??

Next up Jasper/Jiper (Jason/Piper) because who actually likes them

So their relationship was never real in the first place, their memories were altered. But then Piper is so possessive over him and bitchy to anyone who wasn't Jason (like that scene where Percy got hurt and she was like "I feel bad for annabeth but I'm glad it was him and not Jason" wtf was that?)

Considering their entire relationship was a lie and Jason was essentially claimed as hers the second they met, I don't understand why they stayed together. I assumed they had "broke up" when they were at camp because like they didn't know eachother at all (not even an entire day, Jason had a few minutes with her) and weren't trying to talk it out. And then I read moa and literally thought I missed a book bc "why and when tf did they start dating"

They were written so badly and in my opinion they only ever brought out the worst in each other (Piper acting even more 'pick-me-girl-y' than normal and Jason just being far more confused and guilty than normal) because Jason did not know this girl and they never actually spoke about it.

I get why Piper was upset about everything, it is a really shitty situation and that would be real hard to deal with. But the possessiveness and bitchiness drove me crazy and I honestly thinks it's selfish to stay in that relationship.

In all of their ship moments it's just so tacky, you can see how desperate and pushy Piper is and how uncomfortable Jason is. It's like he pities her a lot of the time.

Y'all might be mad about this one but onto Percabeth (Percy/Annabeth)

They were a pretty great pair and in the original series I did like them but then hoo hit and they became fully codependent and so out of character. It was like they weren't Percy Jackson and Annabeth Chase anymore, they were just Percabeth. They'd say the most ooc shit ever and then throw in a "seaweed brain" and everyone acted like it was sweet scene.

The way she'd just ask him for help every time she has an issue, the way he was so insistent on looking after her? Yeah the scene where Annabeth threw her knife into the water was cute but Annabeth Chase, the girl full of hubris, anger issues and fight training would never rely on Percy to fight her battles. It was like Rick forgot her personality and just went "yeah she's Percy's smart gf" as if she hadn't been training twice as long as he had

The original series and chalice of the gods had them both pretty in character but I think the love story aspect really took over their lives as soon as they got together.

I've noticed loads of Percabeth fans get really angry when people don't like them but I just think they were so much better as friends and I rlly don't get the hype.

I think both of them just really needed a good friend and I was pretty disappointed when I realized they liked eachother (I didn't realize until Annabeth got mad at Rachel) because I'd always just seen their relationship as platonic yk?

That's probably just me being dense and seeing it how I wanted it to be but I wish more pjo fans would stop acting as if they were the cutest ideal couple. Percabeth fans getting really angry at every other ship involving one of them? Hating Rachel just because she likes Percy? Its so unnecessary

It isn't a bad ship but it wasn't written very well and I think dating erased a lot of their personalities and lives.

Next up is Solangelo (Nico/Will)

So I love these two and I don't think there's much wrong with them but I do think it was very rushed.

If you haven't noticed by this point, I really think Rick put less effort into the characters in heroes of olympus, there were some great scenes and I love the series but a lot of the relationships were written so badly and it felt like he was trying to hard to push the romance, rather than the fantasy/adventure part that he seems a lot better at

I think almost every solangelo fic I've read had been better written, the only reason they were together is Rick's insistance of getting every teenager in a romantic relationship. They met, argued and killed a guy and then Will complimented him. And they were cute but the next we heard from them should've been their relationship growing and not just "that's my boyfriend"

Onto Piper and Shel

Edit: Tbh I think Nico was changed quite a bit to fit with Will? If you compare how he acts before and after meeting Will I think it's pretty different.

So these two felt the most forced out of everyone. It seems like Rick just didn't want Piper to be single, forgot she wasn't in the later books and had to think of something quickly. This is mostly about Piper because Shel is barely even a character, she's just there to show Piper 'moving on' and to show she likes girls.

I don't care that Piper likes girls, I do too, and I would've loved that if we actually got that storyline. But it's clearly forced diversity rather than actually planning her to be that way, and it doesn't feel natural at all. We go from her obsessively pining over Jason to her dumping him to her seemingly wanting him back and after all that I was expecting them to get back together or at least for them to spend some time single to move on but the next time we see Piper she's kissing her girlfriend?

I've seen a lot of people saying that's why she was so desperate to stay with Jason and that that's why their relationship seemed kinda fake but if you read her perspective it really doesn't seem like that's the case. I think calling her a lesbian takes away quite a bit of her personality (like can't she be bi? pan? something that stays accurate to the character??) because absolutely, lesbians can have relationships with men before they figure themselves out but that isn't what happened.

It seems like Piper wasn't over Jason at all and I think dating Shel was her way of trying to move on. (Because whatever chance she had with Jason is obviously gone, her rizz is strong but death is stronger) It's not like I want her to spend the rest of her life alone and sad, but I would've loved some character development that wasn't just shoving her out of the closet. She wasn't over Jason but then he died and she suddenly has a girlfriend? How long were they together??

Like I thought Piper was bi for a while but the way it was written seemed so much like a "her boyfriend left so she's gay now!" rather than the semi-closeted bi mess that she was probably meant to be.

Lastly Gruniper (Grover and Juniper)

The only relationship that isn't weirdly codependent and it's because Rick blatantly forgot about her. Grover liked someone else in chalice of the gods? He was fully ready to cheat on her throughout the book

And just? Why were they ever together?? The first time we meet juniper its through her being Grovers gf. Grover was super underdeveloped as a character, as a friend and as a boyfriend because characters that weren't in relationships got no development but Juniper was literally mentioned less than Rachel's parents. We don't know when where or why they got together, we don't know when they met we don't know ANYTHING about their relationship